“This total abortion ban is designed as a test case for a Trump-influenced US Supreme Court to obliterate Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion.”

Two Ohio Republicans are teeing up a potential total abortion ban test case for the U.S. Supreme Court by seeking co-sponsors for a new “personhood” bill to make performing or having an abortion murder.

GOP Reps. Nino Vitale (Urbana) and Ron Hood (Ashville) are circulating the co-sponsor request for anti-choice legislation that gives legal rights to a fertilized egg and grants whistleblower protections to those who report abortion providers or patients to law enforcement, according to the document reviewed by Rewire.

“Up until this point, legislators have only regulated abortion,” the lawmakers wrote in the two-page memo dated September 8. “They have decided which classes of people have a right to life by creating exceptions to abortion, which is tantamount to creating exceptions to pre-meditated murder.”

Aggravated murder in Ohio is punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty.

A co-sponsor request is a way to gauge support and enlist backers before draft legislation is filed for introduction, a representative from Vitale’s office told Rewire. Co-sponsors have until 5 p.m. on October 6 to sign on in support of the proposed measure, which would be called the Ohio Life at Conception Act.

Republicans control both legislative chambers and the governor’s office. Gov. John Kasich last year signed a 20-week ban on abortion.

If enacted, the Ohio Life at Conception Act could set up a constitutional challenge to the legal right to abortion in the United States, which appears to be the lawmakers’ goal. Calling out the landmark decision in the memo to fellow legislators, they note, “Since the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision on Roe v. Wade, countless innocent children have died at the hands of the abortion industry. … The time for regulating evil and compromise is over. The time has come to abolish abortion in its entirety, and recognize that each individual has the inviolable and inalienable right to life.”

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade rejected the notion that a fetus is a “‘person’ within the language and meaning of” the Constitution.

Hood’s and Vitale’s offices did not respond to Rewire‘s inquiry about whether the impending measure was an avenue to overturn Roe v. Wade. But reproductive rights advocates believe it’s likely.

“This total abortion ban is designed as a test case for a Trump-influenced US Supreme Court to obliterate Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion,” NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland said in an emailed statement.

The Ohio Life at Conception Act, she noted, isn’t the first effort by Ohio Republicans to overturn the landmark abortion rights decision. Copeland sees an identical aim in current legislation to outlaw abortion in cases involving Down Syndrome and in a bill to make it a felony to perform a common second-trimester procedure known as dilation and evacuation.

“Elected officials should work in the service of their community, not to abuse their position to impose their personal beliefs on their constituents,” she said.

Republican lawmakers in recent years have repeatedly pushed to give legal status to fertilized eggs. In 2015, legislators in 12 states introduced so-called personhood measures that ultimately failed. Colorado was the first state to put the “personhood” issue to voters in a 2008 ballot initiative. It failed that year, and in 2010, 2012, and 2014.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/09/11/ohio-republicans-aim-make-abortion-care-aggravated-murder/

New California Initiative Could Make Abortion First-Degree Murder
Getty Images
In this file image, anti-abortion activists hold a rally opposing federal funding for Planned Parenthood. (Photo by Olivier Douliery/Getty Images)

A new measure aimed for the 2018 ballot could criminalize abortion as first-degree murder, announced Secretary of State, Alex Padilla on Friday.

Anti-abortion supporters have been cleared to begin collecting signatures for a proposal that would not only make abortion murder but also seeks to expand the definition of abortion, including forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization, according to a report from the Sacramento Bee.

The proponent, Daniel Ehinger, announced the news on his Facebook pagestating, “We received our circulating title to gather signatures and work to get Abolishing Abortion on the November 6th, 2018 ballot through a state ballot initiative that would amend our constitution. Please pray for our efforts. JESUS!”

In order for the initiative to qualify for the ballot, Ehinger, would need to gather 585,407 registered voter signatures.

If the measure does reach the 2018 ballot it is expected to be challenged on constitutional grounds for eliminating women’s rights, the Sacramento Bee reports.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california/New-California-Proposal-Could-Make-Abortion-First-Degree-Murder–443483903.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_LABrand

Planned Parenthood, 1001 Emanuel Cleaver II Blvd. in Kansas City, plans to resume abortions at the clinic in Kansas City. Tammy Ljungblad tljungblad@kcstar.com

Medical professionals told they will not face prosecution if they refer women to clinics in England and Wales for abortions

Pro-choice and anti-abortion campaigners at a rally in Belfast.
 Pro-choice and anti-abortion campaigners at a rally in Belfast. Abortion in Northern Ireland is permitted only in very restricted circumstances. 

Medical staff in Northern Ireland have been told they will not face prosecution if they refer women to clinics in England and Wales for abortions, a development that campaigners say will ease the climate of fear under which many have been operating.

In a significant clarification of the law, the director of public prosecutions for Northern Ireland, Barra McGrory, has said he does “not see the issue of criminal liability arising in the context of NHS staff advising or informing patients of the availability of abortion services in England and Wales”.

Until now the threat of prosecution has made many medical professionals feel constrained in the advice they give women seeking abortions elsewhere. Abortionin Northern Ireland is permitted only in very restricted circumstances, and Northern Ireland has the harshest criminal penalty for illegal abortion in Europe – life imprisonment for the woman undergoing the abortion and for anyone assisting her.

Although the government ruled this year that it would fund the medical costs of women from Northern Ireland who travel to England for an abortion, GPs in Northern Ireland were concerned that they were unable to discuss making referrals without exposing themselves to the risk of prosecution.

Grainne Teggart, from Amnesty International’s Northern Ireland office, received the response from the Northern Ireland Public Prosecution Service in response to a letter requesting clarification of the law. She welcomed the development, but said the Department of Health in Northern Ireland needed to revise its guidance to make the situation less confusing.

“The threat of prosecution has long loomed over medical professionals in Northern Ireland, who have previously felt unable to refer women to other parts of the UK for abortion services for fear of criminal prosecution. This has acted as a significant barrier for women seeking to access abortion,” she said.

“The Public Prosecution Service has now stated clearly they can see no risk of criminal prosecution in these circumstances. This is hugely important and should relieve the profession of this chilling threat. This is a significant breakthrough in the fight for abortion rights here.”

One woman described the unhelpful response she received from a Belfast gynaecologist about how to travel to England for an abortion, after she learned that the foetus she was carrying was unlikely to survive.

“They said: ‘We can’t tell you anything, we would be prosecuted if we gave you that information.’ They weren’t allowed to talk about the options; no phone numbers; no clinic address,” she said. “They were frustrated, but they said their hands were tied.”

Guidelines published by Northern Ireland’s Department of Health last year reveal that the courts in Northern Ireland have “never considered the issue of whether it would be lawful to ‘advocate or promote’ in Northern Ireland the termination of a pregnancy in another jurisdiction”, and this lack of clarity added to unease felt by medical practitioners.

senior committee member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in Northern Ireland said last year: “There is a real sense of fear, and concern that one of us could end up in prison.”

Breedagh Hughes, NI director of the Royal College of Midwives, welcomed the clarification. “Midwives have been operating in a climate of fear of prosecution. Women in Northern Ireland have not been getting the care and referrals to services in the UK that they really need because of this threat which we now know does not exist,” she said.

“Healthcare professionals will now be able to refer women to the rest of the UK for abortion services, confident that they will not face prosecution. This will enable us to look after women who seek or need abortion services.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/07/no-prosecution-risk-for-northern-ireland-medical-staff-over-abortion-referrals

Shortly after the election last fall, I called my doctor’s office. When I told the receptionist on the other end of the line that I was hoping to set up an appointment for IUD placement, she laughed. Not dismissive or mocking: just a little sad, a little rueful, the kind of laugh that happens when you’re faced with something too big to fit into words.

“You know, you’re the fifth woman that’s called today to make a placement appointment?” She said after finding my information online. “We’re booked through for the next month.” Her voice softer. “I got mine last week. It felt like a choice; and it was a great feeling. Needed.” And then she cleared her throat and put me on the schedule for December 31st, sent me an email with the confirmation information, and told me she’d update me if anything sooner opened up.

I’d been on extended-cycle pills for four years at that point, and had only given the IUD cursory thought.  I am (immovably so) a creature of habit and inertia, and I’d gotten used to that 8 AM alarm on my phone, that little pink box on my nightstand, the little pillbox tucked into my bag in case I had an early morning. If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it, right? But the night of the election, when all else seemed insurmountable, I found myself searching for something, anything to do at 2 AM. So I read through four years of prescriptions and insurance claims and calculated how much my birth control would cost if I suddenly had to start paying out-of-pocket. $881. Per year.

So, I decided to get an IUD.

I spent the weeks before my appointment researching my options and contacting my parents’ insurance company to make sure my choice would be covered. I decided on the Mirena, a five-year hormonal IUD that multiple friends had raved about, and that was fully covered by my plan. I read testimonial after testimonial about what the appointment was like: some women talked about a consultation first, some about going straight into a placement. I had my annual well-woman visit scheduled for early December, when I got home from college, and the receptionist that I’d spoken to had advised me to just ask my doctor to add an IUD consultation onto the visit (she explained that for their office, a consultation was required, but just involved talking a little bit about my medical background, and then measuring my uterus with a sounding device to make sure the IUD would fit).

Still, I worried about the hidden out-of-pocket costs that seemed to come up so often when things get lost in the havoc of healthcare claims and communications in the U.S. One wrong code from a practitioner, one out-of-network lab, and all of a sudden, you have a $300 bill springing into your life. And yet, I couldn’t find any detailed information about the actual costs of an IUD placement. This, I know, is mostly because healthcare costs can fluctuate so dramatically across states, regions, even towns. There’s no guarantee at all that what I paid (or would have, without insurance) would be what anyone else getting a similar procedure in a similar part of the U.S. would pay. With that said, the following is every test, procedure, and payment that was involved in my IUD placement (in addition to notes about what each test was for/where hidden charges may come in), in the hopes that someone, somewhere might find it helpful in the course of making a decision about their contraception.

Consultation Visit: These are all of the charges from my “consultation,” which in my case was just part of my annual well-woman visit. Most practitioners recommend — or even require — that you’ve had a recent pelvic exam/Pap smear before your IUD placement to avoid potentially spreading infection during the procedure, so these tests will often be done during your consultation in addition to any measurements or medical advisements.

Because of my HMO plan, I’m required to have my primary care physician recommend any specialists that I need, before I can qualify for coverage for those specialized visits; so during my visit, I made sure that my PCP had written a recommendation for the OB/GYN scheduled to place my IUD, and that my insurance company had been contacted. I also confirmed with the nurse on shift that the lab processing my test results was also in-network. Additionally, I know that on my plan, I would have had to pay a copay for the consultation office visit if I’d already had my well-woman visit that year; so that may be a thing to keep in mind if you’ve already maxed out your plan’s office/physician’s visits for the year.

(I do not even know what to do about the number of acronyms in that paragraph. Merp.)

Pap Smear (Lab): $90

HPV DNA Test (Lab): $77

Chlamydia Test (Lab): $77

First Office Visit (IUD consultation, uterus measurement): $137

Placement Visit: These are all of the charges from my second visit for the actual IUD insertion, after I had been approved for placement. A note: Bayer, the company that makes Mirena IUD, works with healthcare providers to supply a certain number of free IUDs to qualifying women (so the only costs would be that of the placement procedure, and a potential office visit charge). My OB/GYN’s office has a fairly straightforward application process for this, though I’m not sure if that extends to other practices. There’s also a recommended string check for 8-12 weeks after your insertion, to make sure the IUD is still in place. I visited my college’s free clinic for mine (with a nurse practitioner; it was easy-breezy!), so I’m not quite sure what costs might be affiliated with a more formal office visit.

Mirena: $868

Placement Procedure: $147

Second Office Visit (the office visit charge for the procedure): $137

Three Month Follow-up/String Check: $0 (at my college’s free clinic)

Total:

$1533 (+ a bottle of Tylenol, two hot pads, and a $2.99 movie rental. They said after-care?)

Eight Months After:

Again, due to my family’s generous insurance policy, as well as the ACA requirements for insurance coverage of any FDA-approved birth control methods, I didn’t pay for any of this out-of-pocket. I know that I have been — and am — incredibly privileged to not only have reliable and generous health insurance through my parents, but also to have ready access to healthcare both at home and in my college town. I am so lucky, and so grateful.

I’ve loved my IUD. I didn’t realize how freeing it’d feel to turn off that alarm (four years!); and I think part of me feels that if my Mirena’s there already, the government can’t decide to also situate itself in my uterus? Of course, that’s not true, and perhaps to articulate it in that way is to dismiss all of the work that still needs to be done to keep affordable care for women at the forefront of healthcare policy. But for me, that privilege — that tiny, plastic, t-shaped bit of privilege — is an everyday reminder not to stop fighting.

The Real Cost Of An IUD

Anti-choice activists may have a better shot than you think at getting the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade under Donald Trump. (Photo by ZACH GIBSON/AFP/Getty Images)

A series of court battles over onerous reproductive rights restrictions in one conservative state could help right-wing activists challenge ‘Roe v. Wade.’

When Donald Trump ran for president, despite his long history of pro-choice positions, he essentially offered evangelical Christians a dealHelp elect me, and I will appoint pro-life, conservative justices to the Supreme Court. Sure enough, less than three months into his presidency, Trump’s first SCOTUS appointee—Neil Gorsuch—was confirmed, and anti-choice advocates seemed to be one step closer to their ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.

It may take another appointee to truly tilt the scales of justice against reproductive rights in America’s highest court. But in the meantime, conservatives have been eyeing the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in St. Louis, Missouri, as a vehicle to bring such a challenge. That’s where, in 2015, appellate judges urged the nation’s highest court to revisit existing abortion jurisprudence, and turn matters over to the states, as conservatives have long dreamed.

Now that same federal appeals court, which may be more hostile than any other to abortion rights, is getting a bunch of new opportunities to go after a woman’s right to choose in Arkansas—and maybe even set the stage for the end of Roenationally.

Over the past several years, legislators in Arkansas—one of seven states under the Eighth Circuit’s purview—have passed some of America’s most restrictive abortion laws. Already in 2017, Arkansas passed a statute that would criminalize doctors who perform dilation and evacuation (the most common second-trimester procedure), and also permit husbands to sue to prevent their wives from obtaining abortions—with no exceptions even for rape or incest.

Set to go into effect on July 30, the law was blocked after the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arkansas, and the Center for Reproductive Rights sued over it and three other recently passed abortion restrictions. Lawyers brought the suit on behalf of a physician working at one of the last two abortion clinics in the state, and argued the laws posed unconstitutional burdens on a woman’s right to choose.

On July 28, federal judge Kristine Baker blocked the laws’ enforcement, and Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge filed for an appeal two weeks ago. A spokesman for the AG did not return multiple requests for comment.

What should worry abortion-rights advocates is that there’s plenty of reason to suspect the Eighth Circuit will be sympathetic to Rutledge’s challenge. In March 2016, Judge Baker issued another injunction against a 2015 Arkansas lawrequiring physicians who prescribe abortion-inducing drugs to secure contracts with doctors with hospital-admitting privileges—a high bar to meet in the increasingly conservative state, and one the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association said had no medical basis. This past July, the Eighth Circuit lifted Baker’s injunction, ruling she would need to more concretely prove that a sizable number of women will face harm under that law.

In an interview with VICE, Steve Aden, chief legal officer and general counsel for Americans United for Life, said he felt the Eighth Circuit’s request for “some real math” was reasonable. He also defended the admitting privileges requirement as a common-sense measure to protect women’s health, noting that other outpatient surgical procedures generally require it. “If you or I go to a clinic and get Lasik or a colonoscopy, chances are really good that the doctors will have admitting privileges,” he said.

Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court last year heard arguments for Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, widely considered to be the most significant reproductive rights case in nearly 25 years. In a 5–3 decision, the justices ruled that a package of Texas abortion restrictions imposed an unconstitutional burden on women seeking to end their pregnancies.

Fatima Goss Graves, the president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, told VICE anti-abortion opponents haven’t been much deterred by that outcome. On the contrary, she said, they are eagerly working to put more abortion cases before the Supreme Court as soon as possible. “They are still purposely trying to pass extreme laws that conflict with Whole Women’s Health, with Roe, so they’ll [then] be challenged in court,” she said. “That is the strategy.”

Another Arkansas case that could reach the Supreme Court concerns conservative boogeyman Planned Parenthood. In 2015, following the release of doctored videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood illegally profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, Arkansas Republican governor Asa Hutchinson announcedhe would be terminating Medicaid contracts with the women’s health organization. Judge Baker blocked the move that September, but last month, a three-person panel on the Eighth Circuit decided Arkansas could cancel its Medicaid contract with Planned Parenthood—a notable departure from rulings in the Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits. On August 30, the plaintiffs appealed to make their case again before the entire Eighth Circuit.

Aden, of Americans United for Life, thinks this case stands a shot of reaching the Supreme Court given the Eighth Circuit’s first decision diverged so sharply from other Appeals Courts nationwide.

I asked Bonyen Lee-Gilmore, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Great Plains (an affiliate overseeing Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma), if they would appeal to the Supreme Court, should the full Eighth Circuit uphold the Medicaid ruling. “When it comes to next steps in the legal world, we really play it one step at a time,” she said. “Every time a decision comes down, we’re evaluating all our legal options, and the reality is we could end up in the Supreme Court, but we’re not there yet. Right now, we’re just seeing if we can successfully secure an en banc appeal.” (To hear a case ‘en banc’ means before the entire bench of judges, rather than a three-person panel.)

It’s worth noting that even though Arkansas’s governor cancelled state Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood over the 2015 fetal tissue videos, three Republican-led congressional investigations and 13 state-level probes—including one by a Texas grand jury—found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Gillian Metzger, the Stanley H. Fuld Professor of Law and vice dean at Columbia Law School, thinks the Eighth Circuit “has really pushed the envelope” on constitutional retraction of reproductive rights in America. But whether these specific cases make it to the Supreme Court, she said, comes down—as always—to how willing justices are to engage with the abortion issue again. “The bigger question is does the Court have an appetite for this after 2016? And my guess it might wait a little bit to see how the Whole Women’s Health decision plays out,” she said.

In the meantime, President Trump will have the opportunity to fill three vacancies on the Eighth Circuit. If all are confirmed, according to longtime legal writer Rox Laird, only one of the Eighth Circuit’s 11 judges will have been appointed by a Democratic president, making it “the most ideologically lopsided of all the US Court of Appeals.”

Even if pro-choice advocates secure Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and defeat this round of abortion restrictions in the Eighth Circuit—by no means a safe bet—advocates aren’t expecting legislators to slow down their anti-abortion efforts anytime soon. In mid August, Planned Parenthood Great Plains and the ACLU argued yet another case in Arkansas federal court, protesting a law mandating the suspension of an abortion provider’s license for any minor error found during an inspection. That rule doesn’t apply to any other licensed health center in the state.

“We’ll be on high alert when the legislature returns in 2019 and continue to fight these extreme attacks on women and their rights,” said Rita Sklar, the executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “Often, the only way to get Arkansas politicians out of the exam room is to take them to court.”

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjj984/a-legal-war-in-arkansas-threatens-abortion-rights-everywhere

GETTY

The statistics aren’t good. According to recent estimates, women make up just under 20 percent of Congress and less than 25 percent of all state legislatures. Only six of our nation’s governors are women. But we are 51 percent of the population. And the research shows that when women participate in government, we make it run better, more collaboratively. Historically, women have needed to be convinced to enter politics. But within weeks of the 2016 presidential election, thousands of women announced they plan to run. And we want them to win. So we’re giving them a weekly example of a woman who has run and won — or in this week’s case, a woman who’s well on her way. The point: You can, too.

Kate Brown is the current Governor of Oregon. Previously, she was the Oregon Secretary of State and in the Oregon State Senate. She succeeded former Governor John Kitzhaber when he resigned in February 2015 and won her own special election in 2016, making her the first openly bisexual governor ever to serve in the United States. Since Trump was inaugurated, Oregon has codified a woman’s right to choose, just in case the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and has passed protections against deportations. Brown herself has issued an executive order to reaffirm Oregon’s commitment to immigrants, strengthening its status as a sanctuary state and defying Trump’s hardline positions. Last month, she signed the Reproductive Health Equity Act into law The measure requires all insurers to cover birth control and abortion — without a copay. It has been widely deemed the most progressive reproductive health policy in the country.

I remember telling my mother in the third grade that I wanted to be President of the United States. I remember her saying, “But we don’t have enough money.” It wasn’t that I was raised in a low-income home. It was more, I think, “You’re not the right type of person that runs for president.” It seemed like her way of telling me, “That’s not a job that girls do.”

Growing up, I was a 1960s baby in Minnesota, and books were my sort of portal to the world. I read extensively and read about a lot of really strong women, like Amelia Earhart and Julia Gordon Low, who founded the Girl Scouts, and of course Harriet Tubman. Back then, my teachers were really important for me; they were role models, pushing me and encouraging me to succeed. And that continued throughout my undergraduate classes at the University of Colorado and in law school in Oregon.

I had always wanted to go to law school because I knew that being a lawyer would give me the tools to fight for justice and equality, and later, I got into public service because I wanted to be a voice for the voiceless. So, in 1982, I moved to Oregon to go to law school. While I was there, one of my biggest mentors in law school was the associate dean, and she happened to mentor another woman in the class before me, whose name you probably know, [North Dakota Sen.] Heidi Heitkamp. The fact that she mentored both Heidi and me is pretty extraordinary, I must say.

On her “from birth” feminism

At Lewis and Clark [Law School], I really fell in love with Oregon. It was like I came home. I’d been somewhat active in high school, not so active in college; I was quite active here when I was in law school, working and volunteering at one of the local women’s health centers. This is when we were having the battle of making sure women could get into health clinics without being harassed by protestors. After law school, I continued my activism, both through volunteering and getting involved working [to oppose] some of the anti-choice ballot measures.

http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a12157267/kate-brown-oregon-governor-abortion/

A review by Rewire found that at least $3.1 million in grants have been awarded to religiously affiliated organizations or crisis pregnancy centers, also known as fake clinics.

The Trump administration in recent weeks has awarded millions in grants to state governments and organizations to fund abstinence-only sex education. More than $3 million in federal funds has gone to organizations that distribute inaccurate and misleading information about sexual health.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded $8.9 million in grants to 21 organizations and agencies through the Competitive Abstinence Education (CAE) program. HHS has awarded an additional $2.1 million in grants and sub-grants to 34 organizations and agencies through the abstinence education program created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The grants for abstinence-only sex education programs come in the wake of the Trump administration’s decision to eliminate $213.6 million in grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs and research.

A review of the abstinence education grants by Rewire found that at least $3.1 million has been awarded to religiously affiliated organizations and crisis pregnancy centers, or fake clinics that use anti-choice propaganda to dissuade people from seeking abortion care.

ThriVe was awarded a $433,021 grant to provide abstinence-only education to youth in the St. Louis area. The organization operates three fake clinics in the St. Louis area, and has regularly organized protests of Planned Parenthood. ThriVe’s Best Choice abstinence-only program has faced criticism from parents, and several school districts in the St. Louis area have discontinued or suspended the program to review the curriculum.

Pamela Merritt, executive director of Reproaction, told Rewire in an email that the Trump administration’s grant to ThriVe is “outrageous.”

“Missouri is already one of seven states rerouting millions in federal TANF dollars intended to alleviate hunger to these fake clinics,” Merritt said. “The state’s best interests are not well served by Trump sending even more hard-earned tax dollars to a controversial anti-abortion fake clinic that systematically misleads and shames women seeking abortion care.”

Elizabeth’s New Life Center, an Ohio-based self-described Christ-centered ministry organization with several locations throughout the state, was awarded a $442,019 grant. Gov. John Kasich (R) in July approved a budget that included $1 million in funding for fake clinics in the state.

“Abstinence-only programs and crisis pregnancy centers commit a sin of omission when they deny real facts to students and families. Taxpayers do not want their money to go to anti-abortion groups that lie to women and girls,” NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland said in a statement. “These funds are desperately needed in our communities, but they have to get to real health care organizations and groups that provide comprehensive sex education classes. Abstinence-only programs are not effective at delaying the initiation of sexual activity or in reducing teen pregnancy. They’re a harmful waste of taxpayer dollars. Period.”

Other religiously affiliated or anti-choice organizations awarded CAE grants were Bethany Christian Services, which received $441,577; Ambassadors for Christ Youth Ministries, awarded $442,019; and Trinity Church, which received a $442,019 grant.

Three religiously affiliated organizations were awarded sub-grants as part of the ACA’s abstinence education grant to the New Jersey Department of Health. Mount Olives Church of God was awarded $263,236; Free Teens USA was awarded $306,164; and Lifeguard Inc received $343,144.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/09/07/trump-gives-away-millions-anti-choice-fake-clinics/

In a growing number of reproductive health care deserts, there’s no place to get an abortion — or give birth.

A pregnant woman in McAllen, Texas in August, 2016.
 A pregnant woman in McAllen, Texas in August, 2016.

The last abortion clinic in Kentucky is fighting to stay open.

A trial that began on Wednesday at a federal court in Louisville will decide whether EMW Women’s Surgical Center can continue to provide abortions. Kentucky’s Republican Gov. Matt Bevin told the clinic in March that its agreement to comply with strict laws targeting abortion clinics was inadequate, according to NPR. The center sued, arguing that the notification came “out of the blue.” If it wins, the case could open the door for other Kentucky clinics to provide abortions. If it loses, the state will become the first one with no place to safely terminate a pregnancy.

The number of abortion clinics nationwide declined 6 percent between 2011 and 2014, with the biggest declines happening in the Midwest and the South, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Not only are abortion clinics like the one in Kentucky under threat, but a new study shows that hospitals in rural areas throughout the country are eliminating obstetric services, meaning women have to drive for hours to give birth.

The study found that 54 percent of rural counties had no hospital with obstetric services in 2014, up from 45 percent in 2004, according to a recent study published in the journal Health Affairs and reported at ProPublica. That left 2.4 million women of reproductive age living in counties without obstetric care. In Kentucky, where the fight over the last abortion clinic is taking place, only 34.1 percent of rural counties had a hospital with obstetric services, down from 40 percent in 2004.

The Kentucky clinic’s struggle and the study’s findings point to a dual crisis in reproductive health care: Whether a woman wants to continue with her pregnancy or end it, in more and more parts of the country, there’s nobody to help her.

Having to travel long distances for abortion or maternity care is bad for women and families

When the nearest abortion clinic is far away, the costs of the procedure for women go up. In addition to the cost of gas or train or bus tickets, women may have to pay for lodging, especially in states that require multiple clinic visits for abortions. They may also have to take time off work, which can mean lost wages or even a lost job. The need to save money for travel expenses can force women to delay their abortions, making them even more expensive.

When travel becomes prohibitively expensive or difficult, women may try to self-induce an abortion. In Texas, where 96 percent of counties have no abortion provider, between 100,000 and 240,000 women between the ages of 18 and 49 have tried to self-induce an abortion at some point in their lives, according to a 2015 estimate by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project. Depending on the method, self-induction can be dangerous — in a 2014 survey reported by CBS, some women reported getting hit in the stomach in an effort to end a pregnancy.

Having to travel long distances for obstetric care can also be dangerous. Long travel times could contribute to infant mortality and pregnancy complications, according to the Health Affairs study. “All maternal and infant deaths are tragic,” the authors write; “those related to impaired access to care are abhorrent.”

Pregnancy and childbirth come with a number of risks, including hemorrhaging, gestational diabetes, and postpartum depression, said Megan Donovan, a senior policy manager at the Guttmacher Institute. “Access to quality prenatal, labor and delivery, and postpartum care is essential to help identify and avoid these dangers.”

When patients live far away from their obstetricians, prenatal care often has to focus on travel and other logistical planning for the birth, rather than the health of the mother or fetus, said Katy B. Kozhimannil, a professor of health policy and one of the study authors. “There’s a level of anxiety” around giving birth for anyone, she said. Living in a rural area where just getting to the hospital is a struggle only heightens that anxiety.

Why are women losing access to abortion and maternity care?

Some of the biggest drivers of abortion clinic closures are targeted regulation of abortion providers, or TRAP, laws. These laws place restrictions on clinics that do nothing to protect patients. In 11 states, for instance, clinics are required to have a relationship with a local hospital — according to the Guttmacher Institute, such laws do nothing to help patients, but give hospitals “effective veto power over whether an abortion provider can exist.” Kentucky passed such a law in 1998, requiring abortion doctors to have transfer agreements with hospitals; Gov. Bevin now argues that EMW’s transfer agreement is inadequate.

In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, last year, the Supreme Court found that a Texas law requiring that abortion providers have admitting privileges at local hospitals, and that abortion clinics be certified as “ambulatory surgery centers,” constituted “an undue burden on abortion access” and was unconstitutional. The majority opinion, by Justice Stephen Breyer, said that neither provision of the law “offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes.”

Reproductive rights advocates saw the decision as a serious blow to the TRAP law strategy. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing EMW Women’s Surgical Center, believes that the Kentucky law requiring transfer agreements fails to offer benefits that outweigh the burdens it imposes, and thus is unconstitutional by the standard set forth in Hellerstedt.

In rural areas, TRAP laws aren’t the only threat to abortion clinics. Some clinics may close because there simply aren’t enough doctors to staff them, Donovan said. “Abortion, of course, is highly stigmatized and it’s difficult to find providers who are willing to practice, particularly in hostile and sometimes dangerous environments,” she explained. “So you can imagine being isolated in a rural community and being that much more of a target.”

Maternity care in rural areas also faces a number of different threats. “Rural health care in general is particularly vulnerable to reductions in state and federal budgets and workforce supply,” the study authors note — and when hospitals have to cut costs, obstetric care is often the first to go. In places with few births per year, it may not be cost-effective for hospitals to offer maternity care.

Patients giving birth in rural areas are disproportionately likely to be covered by Medicaid, putting rural hospitals in a difficult financial position. Medicaid reimburses for maternity care at about half the rate of private insurance, said Kozhimannil. Any cuts to Medicaid, like those proposed in recent Republican plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act, would have a disproportionate impact on maternity care in rural areas.

It can also be hard for rural areas to recruit and retain obstetricians, said Kozhimannil, since doctors working in underserved areas have to travel long distances and work long hours to take care of patients who have no one else to go to. The more facilities stop offering maternity care, the worse this problem gets.

Abortion and maternity care are closely linked — even if laws try to separate them

“There has long been an assumption that one could separate out issues around abortion from issues around birth,” said Lynn Paltrow, the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women. But, she noted, the majority of women who get abortions already have children. “Any given woman in her lifetime is very likely to need both birth support and abortion,” she explained, and both are becoming less and less available.

That’s especially true in rural areas. “Rural people in general have less and less access to the heath care they need,” Paltrow said.

The Improving Access to Maternity Care Act, which passed in the House of Representatives in January but has yet to get a vote in the Senate, would help address problems with doctor recruitment and retention in rural communities, said Kozhimannil. The bill would allow the federal government to identify areas with shortages of maternity care doctors and place obstetricians and certified nurse midwives in those areas, according to Elissa Strauss at Slate.

In places that have lost maternity care, hospitals, emergency medical services, law enforcement, and others need to plan for the emergency births that will happen when mothers can’t get to a hospital in time, Kozhimannil said. And rural areas can follow the example of programs in Alaska to offer transportation and housing help to women who have to travel to give birth.

Access to contraception and family planning services are especially important in rural areas where both abortion and maternity care providers are far away, Kozhimannil added.

For her, a measure of empathy among policymakers is also crucial. “Most of the people that conduct this research and make these decisions are people that have spent all of their adult lives in urban areas,” she said. “It’s really important for people who make these decisions and policy to think about what it’s like for rural women and families.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/7/16262182/kentucky-clinic-abortion-maternity

Bloomberg/Getty Images

The natural disaster makes the impact of state’s many abortion restrictions even worse.

The full scale of Hurricane Harvey‘s devastation will become clear in the coming weeks as Texans return from shelters and hotels to clean up their homes, or what’s left of them. Adding to the stress of rebuilding after a disaster was the temporary closure of abortion clinics in Houston. The state already has multiple barriers to access abortion, including state-directed counseling with a misinformation-riddled pamphlet24-hour waiting periods before the procedure, and mandatory ultrasounds.

Abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health announced on Friday that it would cover the cost of abortions during the month of September for women affected by Hurricane Harvey as they may have missed their appointments or may have a harder time affording care. Whole Woman’s Health will provide “financial and logistical” assistance to make sure women can get to one of its four Texas clinics—in Austin, San Antonio, McAllen, and Fort Worth—and will cover travel and lodging costs, if necessary.

In a post on its blog, they wrote: “Continued political attacks on abortion access make an unwanted pregnancy particularly stressful in Texas—add that to the stress of dealing with hurricane aftermath. We can only imagine what a stressful time this must be for those patients who had to miss their appointments or are waiting for the nearest clinic to open.”

The provider will use its own Stigma Relief Fund and money from the Texas-based Lilith Fund to cover the cost of care. The Lilith Fund has even created a specific emergency fund for Harvey survivors who need abortion care. People who live in areas hit by the hurricane and need abortion care can call Whole Woman’s Health at 877.835.1090.

Texas is not exactly a friendly place for women’s reproductive rights. This is a state where women are now required to take out “rape insurance” for abortion, after Governor Greg Abbott signed a law banning all insurance coverage of the procedure, even, unbelievably, in the cases of rape, incest, and fatal fetal abnormalities.

Whole Woman’s Health is the provider that sued the state over its unconstitutional clinic shutdown laws, like HB2. They won a Supreme Court case last June which found that requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and mandating that abortion clinics meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers amounted to an undue burden on women’s ability to access abortion care. Still, more than half of the state’s clinics had shuttered since HB2 was signed in 2013 and it takes time to re-open, which can lead to longer wait timesand higher costs. It’s a vicious circle perpetuated by conservative lawmakers that disproportionately impacts low-income women and women of color.

Abbott also signed a law that would ban an abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation (D&E), which the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says is the most common way to terminate a pregnancy after 13 weeks. Whole Woman’s Health, Planned Parenthood, and other reproductive health providers are suing the stateand the ban has been temporarily blocked.

Whole Woman’s Health wrote on its blog on Friday: “The need for abortion care does not stop for natural disasters.”

https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/3kk9q5/a-texas-clinic-is-offering-free-abortions-to-women-affected-by-harvey